Baccarat Edge Sorting: the £7.8M that got away from Phil Ivey

A couple of years back the gambling world was abuzz at the news that Phil Ivey had won £7.8 million playing baccarat at Crockfords Casino in London. It was even more abuzz at the news that Crockfords were refusing to payout, alleging foul play and that Ivey was suing to recover his winnings.

Crockfords still haven’t paid Ivey and probably never will now after the UK’s High Court ruled in favour of the casino on Wednesday.

 

The High Court’s Decision

During his big winning streak Ivey had used a technique known as edge-sorting to gain an advantage over the house.

Edge sorting becomes possible when the backs of playing cards used by a casino are not identical. Bad design, or a flawed cut during manufacture allows individual cards to be identified by the player from the cards back edge, and therefore before it is dealt (back, bottom edge can be viewed while the card is still in shoe).

Crockfords maintained edge sorting was cheating and Ivey wasn’t entitled to his winnings. Ivey, apparently quite open during court proceedings that he employed the technique, was of the belief that he was simply using every advantage at his disposal to gain an edge over the house. After all, it wasn’t his doing that the casino used flawed cards that could be edge-sorted; he only asked that the croupier rotate certain cards before placing them back in the shoe. This way he’d get a look at the edge before it was dealt next time round.

At issue was whether or not edge-sorting is cheating.

According to presiding Judge John Mitting it is.

While describing Ivey as an honest and forthright witness, the judge ruled that Ivey had used the croupier, “as his innocent agent or tool,” and had she been aware she was being manipulated, “would have immediately stopped play.” Ivey was,  “not simply taking advantage of error on [the dealer’s] part or an anomaly practiced by the casino for which [Ivey] was not responsible.”

And the bottom line…

“…this is in my view cheating for the purpose of civil law”

In another blow for Ivey, the judge rejected his lawyer’s request for an appeal

Setting a Bad Precedent

Ivey will be hoping US Courts don’t follow the precedent set by the High Court. He’s got another edge-sorting barney going on Stateside.

This one’s with Atlantic City’s Borgata where Ivey won $9.6 million around the same time he had his big (almost) win at Crockfords. Unlike Crockfords, Borgata paid out the winnings but then had second thoughts and decided to sue to get them back. Probably heard the Crockfords news and thought, hang on…that sounds familiar? I guess they’d also still be pretty grumpy from getting kicked in the nuts by Don Johnson.

Also facing legal action is Cheung Yin Sun, who was present with Ivey during his Crockfords streak. She’s embroiled in a legal stoush over edge-sorting winnings at Foxwoods.

Baccarat Edge Sorting

Must admit, I’m well and truly on Phil Ivey’s side here. In a 60 Minutes interview that aired this week he said he viewed the casino,

 “as my opponent. It’s my job to try to exploit weaknesses in the house and try to give myself the best opportunity to win.”

Who among us, if blessed with the same talent, nerve and sizable gonads (at Crockfords Ivey was down £500,000 before requesting a limit increase and turning things around!) wouldn’t do the same?

The casinos present us with their game. If that game has a slight chink in it that turns the odds in the astute players’ favour, then the casino should wear any cost resulting – just like players typically wear the cost resulting from all games having a house edge. Judge John Mitting is definitely not a gambler.

Below is a good video explaining edge sorting in more detail.